Agree with much of what you have posted above. If you remember, a while back, I mentioned that even if AGW is a myth, it makes sense to reduce our carbon footprint, encourage cleaning up the environment, reduce deforestation, and reduce pollution.

I think that we can both agree to this.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

Jazzy, you do realize though that spreading your ridiculous lies from your dubious sources completely runs counter to your goals of going green. How about you shut up with the terrible pseudoscience and start a new blog about things one can do in one's house to become more and more environmentally friendly? If you spent half the time looking up and posting new and innovative ways to green up a household instead of perusing junk creation science anti-AGW circlejerk blogs, you'd actually get a lot of respect from me.

So. Close this dumb fucking awful thread and make a new one called "Green up that house of yours!"

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

I will accept the olive branch when there's no feces rubbed on it. I can be sure there's no feces rubbed on it when this thread dies and you start a new one about household tips to help the environment.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

I just think it runs counter to your environmental goals to spend so much time and effort in this thread.

My 36 Sunpower panels have produced 51,648 KWH so far.

For $ 15,000 you prepay all the electricity a home needs over it's life time.

If you plan on getting a Leaf or any plug in car, I recommend investing another 15,000 for a 4.2 KW system and drive your E car for the rest of your life even if you are 16 right now.
I think that might come out to $ 0.01 per mile (high estimate).

The cost of delivery of the energy to you is $ 0.-

I do not have a degree in business or economics but if you think 15Gs is a lot for a life time of fuel you should immediately get a frontal lobotomy.

You can have more energy than you can ever use for very little $ and you will not produce ANY POLLUTION whatsoever.

Agree with much of what you have posted above. If you remember, a while back, I mentioned that even if AGW is a myth, it makes sense to reduce our carbon footprint.

We are in an inter-glacial period in an ice age. Interglacials last 10,000 years or so on average, and ours is 10,000 years old or so. I don't agree that it is a good idea to reduce our carbon footprint until we know what the non-man made portion of climate change is, it might be that our CO2 is the only thing keeping us alive.

Environmental scientists pretend to understand the human component of global warming, but when you turn around and ask them "if humans died out during the last glaciation period, when would this interglacial have ended?" they have no idea. They need to understand things better before they start trying to change stuff.

(My main complaint with 'Green tech' - the prices are currently artificially inflated to the extreme)

Really? How are they artificially inflated?

I've found that doing solar at my home even with all of the governmental tax breaks (which artificially lower the cost) and such still makes it a money losing proposition.

The company I work for looked at doing solar to power the data center. They estimated something like 20 acres of solar panels and about 40-year pay off. I assume they were including all of the tax breaks they'd have at their disposal. And these are guys who have a lot of incentive to lower power costs.

Agree with much of what you have posted above. If you remember, a while back, I mentioned that even if AGW is a myth, it makes sense to reduce our carbon footprint[, encourage cleaning up the environment, reduce deforestation, and reduce pollution.][FT Comment: edited out by e###]

I think that we can both agree to this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by e1618978

We are in an inter-glacial period in an ice age. Interglacials last 10,000 years or so on average, and ours is 10,000 years old or so. I don't agree that it is a good idea to reduce our carbon footprint until we know what the non-man made portion of climate change is, it might be that our CO2 is the only thing keeping us alive.

Variations in the Earth's orbit through time have changed the amount of solar radiation received by the Earth in each season (Figure 3).

Figure 3. (Top) Solar radiation varies smoothly through time with a strong cyclicity of ~23,000 years, as seen in this time-series of July incoming solar radiation at 65°N (Berger and Loutre, 1991). (Middle) In contrast, glacial-interglacial cycles last ~100,000 years and consist of stepwise cooling events followed by rapid warmings, as seen in this time-series inferred from hydrogen isotopes in the Dome Fuji ice core from Antarctica (Kawamura et al., 2007). (Bottom) Atmospheric CO2 measured from bubbles in Dome Fuji ice shows the same pattern as the temperature time-series (Kawamura et al., 2007).

Interglacial periods tend to occur during periods of peak solar radiation in the Northern Hemisphere summer. As you can see in Figure 3, however, full interglacials occur only about every fifth peak in the precession cycle. The full explanation for this observation is still an active area of research. Non-linear processes such as positive feedbacks within the climate system must also be very important in determining when glacial and interglacial periods occur.

Warming at the end of glacial periods tends to happen more abruptly than the increase in solar insolation. There are several positive feedbacks that are responsible for this. One is the ice-albedo feedback. A second feedback involves atmospheric CO2. Direct measurement of past CO2 trapped in ice core bubbles show that the amount of atmospheric CO2 decreased during glacial periods (Figure 3), in part because more CO2 was stored in the deep ocean due to changes in either ocean mixing or biological activity. Lower CO2 levels weakened the atmosphere's greenhouse effect and helped to maintain low temperatures. Warming at the end of the glacial periods liberated CO2 from the ocean, which strengthened the atmosphere's greenhouse effect and contributed to further warming.

Before I respond to your premis that the man made component of CO2 might be the only thing keeping us alive, you need to understand that there are already natural production of CO2 through biological and geologic processes. There is also a natural process of absorption and release of CO2 commonly referred to the carbon cycle. Some of the factors that trap CO2, known as carbon sinks are plants and deposition of CO2 by marine organism like coralCaCO3---calcium carbonate. However we are losing these sinks by deforestation and pollution of the oceans through toxic substances and CO2 releases. The increasing amount of atmospheric CO2 is making the oceans more acidic.http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...20#post1744020

But as Guinotte and his colleagues are discovering, that boonthe oceans' role as a "carbon sink"comes at a potentially devastating cost: the oceans are becoming more acidic. So far the effects have remained largely out of the public eye. But Guinotte says the changes in ocean chemistry that he sees are great enough to keep him awake at night and may prove to be among the most devastating effects of ever-increasing levels of CO2 *in the atmosphere.

The CO2 levels, 50% greater than the surrounding non-urban areas, have been attributed to anthropogenic sources and the physical geography of the area. We quantified sources of CO2 emissions across the metropolitan region. Anthropogenic CO2 emission data were obtained from a variety of government and NGO sources. Soil CO2 efflux from the dominant land-use types was measured over the year. Humans and automobile activity produced more than 80% input of CO2 into the urban environment.

Anthropogenic carbon emissions per year has reached a troublesome magnitude. Today, the atmosphere contains about 720 Gtons of carbon. The concentration of carbon dioxide is about 360 ppm. Regardless of its source, one billion tons of carbon released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide would increase its concentration by 0.5 ppm (360 / 720) if all of it stayed there. However, scientists estimate that about half of present human carbon emissions are absorbed by the environment. Of the half absorbed, scientists have accounted for where half of that goes. Where the other half goes is the "mystery of the missing carbon" (about 1.8 Gton per year).

Quote:

Originally Posted by e1618978

Environmental scientists pretend to understand the human component of global warming, but when you turn around and ask them "if humans died out during the last glaciation period, when would this interglacial have ended?" they have no idea. They need to understand things better before they start trying to change stuff.

Please provide links supporting your two statement. Aren't we still in the interglacial period from the last glacial period, so it hasn't ended yet---has it?

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

Worm, why don't you start a thread on solar panels? It is an interesting tech subject that I think a lot of people are interested in all by itself. We're going to see the sector increasingly invade the home and business sectors over time. And this is, after all, a tech board.

Decoupling the tech discussion from the Climate argument couldn't be a bad thing, could it?

For $ 15,000 you prepay all the electricity a home needs over it's life time.

If you plan on getting a Leaf or any plug in car, I recommend investing another 15,000 for a 4.2 KW system and drive your E car for the rest of your life even if you are 16 right now.
I think that might come out to $ 0.01 per mile (high estimate).

The cost of delivery of the energy to you is $ 0.-

I do not have a degree in business or economics but if you think 15Gs is a lot for a life time of fuel you should immediately get a frontal lobotomy.

You can have more energy than you can ever use for very little $ and you will not produce ANY POLLUTION whatsoever.

OIL MUST DIE AND SO MUST COAL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by e1618978

Cost of those panels was more like $50k, the government just paid most of it. And you don't get energy forever, what is the mtbf of your system?

To calculate the cost effectiveness of your panels we would need more information - unsubsidised price, maintenance costs, kwh generated per day, cost of electricity in your state, etc.

Seems like there could be other considerations with solar panels. Latitude could be a factor. Best closest to the equator---also longer days. There are seasonal variations as the sun relative to the earth changes with the season in more northerly or southerly latitudes. Weather pattern are also a factorfewer sunny days would affect the efficiency.

Seems like there could be other considerations with solar panels. Latitude could be a factor. Best closest to the equator---also longer days. There are seasonal variations as the sun relative to the earth changes with the season in more northerly or southerly latitudes. Weather pattern are also a factorfewer sunny days would affect the efficiency.

This might be a comment meant for wh. But batteries might not be necessary as the surplus power generated could be sold and supply the grid and when the sun is down, the credit for the power is bought back.

Question for wm---did the price include the DC>AC inverter and the batteries as MJ1970 mentions?

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

This might be a comment meant for wh. But batteries might not be necessary as the surplus power generated could be sold and supply the grid and when the sun is down, the credit for the power is bought back.

Fair enough. It depends on your objectives I guess. If you are looking to be independent from "the grid" this solution might have some problems.

P.S. I'll also note that this selling back to the grid is a legal mandate. The power companies are required to buy back the excess.

I've found that doing solar at my home even with all of the governmental tax breaks (which artificially lower the cost) and such still makes it a money losing proposition.

The company I work for looked at doing solar to power the data center. They estimated something like 20 acres of solar panels and about 40-year pay off. I assume they were including all of the tax breaks they'd have at their disposal. And these are guys who have a lot of incentive to lower power costs.

Seems like there could be other considerations with solar panels. Latitude could be a factor. Best closest to the equator---also longer days. There are seasonal variations as the sun relative to the earth changes with the season in more northerly or southerly latitudes. Weather pattern are also a factorfewer sunny days would affect the efficiency.

Due to our denier crowd in congress the US has missed the boat on inventing technologies. Leader is Germany. Not known for their sunny weather.....

Panels are now close to twice as efficient than just 5 years ago. The future solutions is simple, when you live in an area with less sun like the North Pole, get more panels.

A company from Spain is ready to introduce a panel that makes as much electricity as 18 of my panels. Pretty much your car roof will be able to charge your batteries very soon and supply electricity for your house as well.

But here in the US we are just not interested in inventing the future. We think killing everything is the way to go. We like wars for oil over intellectual competition for technological leadership and true independence. It's what god wants.

We hate our own government but want to be dependent on communist and sharia regimes, that's just soooo much better. We love radioactive trash and water that burns. We love chemicals in our food and we think freedom is being able to choose cancer causing life styles. We are the intelligent ones.

The continental United States suffered through its second-hottest July on record because of a blistering heatwave from California to Washington, D.C. The heatwave broke more than 2,300 daily temperature records for the month and eclipsed more than 50 records for the highest temperatures in any July, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The hottest July on record occurred in 1936, and the third hottest was 1934.

1997 was the warmest year of this century, based on land and ocean surface temperature data, reports a team of scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC....

The record-breaking warm conditions of 1997 continues the pattern of very warm global temperatures. Nine of the past eleven years have been the warmest on record.

Land temperatures did not break the previous record set in 1990, but 1997 was one of the five warmest years since 1880. Including 1997, the top ten warmest years over the land have all occurred since 1981, and the warmest five years all since 1990. Land temperatures for 1997 averaged three quarters of a degree F (0.42 degrees C) above normal, falling short of the 1990 record by one quarter of a degree F (0.14 degrees C).

Ocean temperatures during 1997 also averaged three quarters of a degree F (0.42 degrees C) above normal, which makes it the warmest year on record, exceeding the previous warm years of 1987 and 1995 by 0.3 of a degree F (0.17 degrees C). The warm El Nino event (depicted as Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies) contributed to the record warmth of the oceans this year.

Quote:

With the new data factored in, global temperature warming trends now exceed 1.0 degree F (0.55 degrees C) per 100 years, with land temperatures warming at a somewhat faster rate. "It is likely that the sustained trend toward increasingly warmer global temperatures is related to anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases", Karl said.

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for September 2010 was 0.50°C (0.90°F) above the 20th century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F) and tied with 1998 as the eighth warmest on record. September 2005 is the warmest September on record.

The September worldwide land surface temperature was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F)the ninth warmest September on record.

The September worldwide ocean surface temperature was 0.44°C (0.79°F) above the 20th century average of 16.2°C (61.1°F) and tied with 1998 and 2008 as the ninth warmest September on record.

For JanuarySeptember 2010, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.5°F) and tied with 1998 as the warmest JanuarySeptember period on record.

The global average land surface temperature for the period JanuarySeptember was the second warmest on record, behind 2007.

The global average ocean surface temperature for the period JanuarySeptember was also the second warmest on record, behind 1998.

The JanuarySeptember 2010 map of temperature anomalies shows that anomalous warm temperatures were present over much of the world, with the exception of cooler-than-average conditions across the higher-latitude southern oceans, the eastern equatorial and northern Pacific Ocean, the southern tip of South America, and central Russia.The combined global average land and ocean surface temperature for the JanuarySeptember period tied with 1998 as the warmest such period on record. This value is 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average. Separately, the average worldwide land surface temperature ranked as the second warmest JanuarySeptember on record, behind 2007. The worldwide average ocean surface temperature also ranked as the second warmest such period on record, behind 1998.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE DATA FOR OCTOBER WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME THIS DATA WAS TAKEN.

What you need to do is to look at the overall trend. One month of cooling does not mean that AGW is a myth. You also have to remember that temperature trends are cyclic, however the over all trend of these cycles indicate that Global Warming is happening. Much of this is attributed to the increasing levels of CO2 and more of this CO2 is attributed to human activity ie deforestation, increase, CO2 emissions, pollution and effects on the ocean environment---if you need data review my previous post.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

This past week, I traveled to Orlando to help run a major conference called STEMtech, which centered around helping educators, industry leaders and others discuss increasing student access into and success in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors and careers with a special focus on exploring the strategic use of information technology to better serve students, campuses, and communities.

The opening keynote speaker was Ed Begley, Jr. - actor and environmental activist - and I was fortunate enough to be able to hear his speech (from behind the stage as a member of the conference technical staff).

His speaking style was low-key, anecdotal, and quite amiable. Listening to him speak, I could feel the passion Mr. Begley has for living a "green" life. I sensed nothing deceptive or false about him - quite the opposite. He's very genuine and sincere.

He and I disagree on the particulars of climate change and what is driving it. But one thing we agree on 100% is that it should make sense - and cents - to "go green".

In his keynote, he barely touched on the subject of climate change - it was irrelevant to the main theme of his speech, which is that we all can and should do more to "reduce, reuse, and recycle" within our own financial means. I agree with that approach 100%.

He heartily supports government incentives and subsidies promoting green technologies and wants more. While I am opposed to the government meddling in the free market to that extent, Begley mentioned nothing about governments forcing people to "go green" against their will.

He said most of us want to protect and preserve our environment and natural resources, decrease dependence on foreign oil, and save money. And we can all do something now, no matter how small, to help achieve those goals.

But he stressed the importance of doing so within your financial means, and only when it makes sense. For example, why go out and buy solar panels for your home if your appliances, home insulation, etc. are not as energy efficient as they could be?

It is replete with practical, cost-effective solutions for those looking to do more with less. I'm all for that, and I intend to implement whatever solutions make sense for my particular situation.

While the issue of anthropogenic climate change is an extremely polarizing one - especially when talking about the extent of government involvement in it - I think we can all agree that doing what we can within our means to live a more sustainable life should makes sense - and cents!

Jg, most of what you have posted before your trip and after have been challenged. You have not responded to the challenges by refuting the evidence that was provided to refute your postings. You have not tried to refute or challenge what I have posted. Rather than posting more material from the same old sites, try to explain what has been challenged and challenge or refute what I've posted. Here is some of what has gone unchallenged:

Studying the PETM, therefore, may provide insight into climate system sensitivity and feedbacks. Just such a study, reported in Nature Geoscience, found that CO2 forcing alone was insufficient to explain the PETM warming. Scientists speculate that other processes and/or feedbacks, hitherto unknown, must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the PaleoceneEocene Thermal Maximum. Simply put, CO2 did not cause the PETM climate change.

As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2*concentration1, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records. We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the PalaeoceneEocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account.

Even without humans, there are many processes that can change the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere and affect global climate. On page 819 of this issue, Bijl et al. (1) provide the first direct evidence that very high CO2 levels occurred about 40 million years ago during the Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum (MECO), one of the hottest intervals in Earth's climate history. The hunt is now on for a geological cause for this eventand fingers are pointing at the Himalayan mountain belt.

There seems to be a concurrence of data to suggest that the CO2 levels during the PETM was elevated. RE incorrectly states Simply put, CO2 did not cause the PETM climate change. This is not what their cited paper states We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the PalaeoceneEocene Thermal Maximum. So there is an acknowledgement that CO2 was a contributing factor of about 1 and 3.5 °C according to their data.

The Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) has been attributed to the rapid release of 2000 x 109 metric tons of carbon in the form of methane. In theory, oxidation and ocean absorption of this carbon should have lowered deep-sea pH, thereby triggering a rapid (<10,000-year) shoaling of the calcite compensation depth (CCD), followed by gradual recovery. Here we present geochemical data from five new South Atlantic deep-sea sections that constrain the timing and extent of massive sea-floor carbonate dissolution coincident with the PETM.....

These findings indicate that a large mass of carbon (»2000 x 109 metric tons of carbon) dissolved in the ocean at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary and that permanent sequestration of this carbon occurred through silicate weathering feedback.

As cited in an earlier posts, there is increasing evidence to suggest that the oceans are becoming increasingly acidic. What the total impacts this will have is anyone's guess. One of the consequences of acidification of the oceans is an effect on the carboncarbonate cycle.

The paper cited above also indicates that during PETM there was also massive release of methane (CH4), another greenhouse gas. What the science doesn't know, as far as I've been able to determine, is what the overall impact of increasing CO2 will have on the other portions of the carbon cycle. There will be biological impacts that so far have not been evaluated as what this will have on the atmosphere.

I encourage you to challenge the originators of the content. I am merely providing links to their content for convenience.

Trying to refute their claims here is pretty pointless.

jg, what is pointless is that you keep going to the same old sites that take a portion of a scientific paper and draw their own conclusions and misquote the findings. It is not convenient for us to try to keep refuting these links. If you don't believe in them or refuse to back them up with sound scientific evidence, then don't post them in the first place.